Just now realized that I still have a Belarusian game called World of Tanks installed on my computer, almost literally the only video game I have played in like the last 10 years. Think I may take that off now.
Maybe we use the Turkish solution and make it a private company deal. Sell the MiGs to Halliburton, let Halliburton sell them to Ukraine for 10% more, lend Ukraine the money, and forgive the debt later.
Plus you get to grease some military industrial complex palms in the deal, it’s truly the American way!
I’m just mentioning the testimony from the CIA director posted above. He says that the numbers are unconfined and based on open source and internal sources and he could go into more detail in closed session.
The nuclear option that has been most frequently discussed in the past few days involves Russia using a small nuclear weapon (a “non-strategic nuclear weapon”) against a specific military target in Ukraine. Such a strike might have a military purpose, such as destroying an airfield or other military target, but it would mainly be aimed at demonstrating the will to use nuclear weapons, or “escalating to de-escalate”, and scaring the west into backing down.
Some analysts have questioned Russia’s ability to actually carry out such an operation, given its lack of practice. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only or even the most likely option available to the Kremlin. Based on war games I ran in the wake of Putin’s 2014 invasion, a more likely option would be a sudden nuclear test or a high-altitude nuclear detonation that damages the electrical grid over a major Ukrainian or even Nato city. Think of an explosion that makes the lights go out over Oslo.
Those war games indicated that the best US response to this kind of attack would be first to demonstrate US resolve with a response in kind, aimed at a target of similar value, followed by restraint and diplomatic efforts to de-escalate. In most games, Russia still responds with a second nuclear attack, but in the games that go “well”, the United States and Russia manage to de-escalate after that, although only in circumstances where both sides have clear political off-ramps and lines of communication between Moscow and Washington have remained open. In all the other games, the world is basically destroyed.
Seems about right. Maybe a bit too gloomy, the real potential win here is Putin’s demise accelerating and the hope (not certainty) of a better government in Russia, but I expect Ukraine either ends up defeated or destroyed/nuked.
Yeah breaking the nuclear taboo can’t possibly end well. But it seems likely to happen someday unless we destroy all nuclear weapons. Or somehow get to where all nuclear countries be stable democracies, or get to a one-world repressive government.
Which is why I think the best plan of action is to let Putin know behind closed doors (so as not to dare him or show him up in public) that even a single tactical nuke brings down the full conventional force of NATO to wipe him out of Ukraine. Draw a clear red line.
That’s what brought up the whole kerfuffle two days ago. I wasn’t saying “Gee what should we do if Putin launches a tactical nuke”. I was saying that we need to make our response to a nuke crystal clear behind the scenes. But also that response should be very severe.
Which is why I think the best plan of action is to let Putin know behind closed doors (so as not to dare him or show him up in public) that even a single tactical nuke brings down the full conventional force of NATO to wipe him out of Ukraine. Draw a clear red line
I think the article suggests that brings a reasonably high chance of global thermonuclear war and I think I agree. Tit for tat is probably better then a NATO invasion on Russia’s border, as crazy as that sounds.
Breaking the nuclear taboo also leads to a good chance of global thermonuclear war down the line.
Promising a very strong response in order to prevent Putin from breaking the nuclear taboo may ultimately be less risky. Let his generals know what will happen. Make it clear that they’d be put in the position of destroying humanity if they try to use nukes on the battlefield. Putin may go for that, but it’s very doubtful he’d get support.
Thats why the author argues the “best” case for avoiding nuclear war is probably eventual peace with a defeated and somewhat subjugated Ukraine. Situation sucks and is very dangerous.
Not to oversimplify, but barring a hail mary palace coup the end result here to me is likely either Putin “wins” or thermonuclear war and the best exit ramp is going to be a Putin “win” that we can live with (i.e. hopefully one that really isnt one long-term). I do think its very very unlikely there’s a happy ending where Zelensky still governs a free and democratic Ukraine.
